Opponents of gay marriage, whose opposition is primarily fueled by religious belief frequently try to claim their opposition is based not on religion but on a general concern for children. They claim that anything other than a traditional “nuclear family” — complete with a working father and stay-at-home mother — is the single best form of family; anything else puts kids “at risk.” They spew this mantra endlessly without realizing that — although it may seem intuitively true (especially for those raised in such homes) — there is little to back it up.

Sociologists Judith Stacey and Timothy Biblarz published an analysis in 2001 in the American Sociological Review of 21 studies of children raised by homosexual parents and found that, overall, they were no more likely to suffer from psychological problems than kids raised in conventional homes.

Ultimately, their findings were generally endorsed by the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association and other mainstream organizations. …

Social scientists do raise issues about the methodology of any studies on the subject — arguing that the field is too young, the samples too small and the variables too many to obtain reliable data.

The bottom line is that within the research community there are no empirical studies demonstrating adverse effects, said Stacey, who is now at New York University. ”We know that a parent’s sexual orientation is not a significant factor. A good parent is a good parent … and parents who get along and are consistent in their child-rearing … have better outcomes than those who don’t,” she said.

In other words, there is no evidence yet that gay marriage is harmful to kids. Christians currently at war with gay marriage can believe all they want that it’s bad, but there is no evidence to support their claim. Their opposition is solely based on their own beliefs — nothing else.